Comprehensive Analysis of Chimeric Contigs in Viral Metagenomic Assembly
| Contig ID | Chimera Type | Confidence | Decision | Breakpoint | Evidence Types | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1539 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,539, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2153 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,153, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2324 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,324, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2730 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,730, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2892 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,892, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1489 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,489, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2600 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,600, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 562 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 562, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 739 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 739, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1047 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,047, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 442 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 442, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1239 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,239, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1642 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,642, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 379 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 379, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1373 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,373, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 250 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 250, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1772 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,772, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3074 | coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,074, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1914 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,914, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 219 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 219, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 194 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 194, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3598 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,598, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1765 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,765, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2962 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,962, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4554 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,554, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4341 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,341, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1345 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,345, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4837 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,837, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3886 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,886, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2825 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,825, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3727 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,727, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3331 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,331, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2263 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,263, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3675 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,675, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3114 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,114, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 546 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 546, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2402 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,402, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2552 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,552, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4225 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,225, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1556 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,556, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 366 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 366, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2637 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,637, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1442 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,442, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1288 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,288, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1572 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,572, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 457 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 457, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1681 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,681, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 334 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 334, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 242 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 242, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1140 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,140, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1846 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,846, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1914 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,914, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 541 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 541, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 769 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 769, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 957 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 957, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 2143 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,143, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 346 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 346, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1039 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,039, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2333 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,333, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1685 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,685, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1539 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,539, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 547 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 547, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1352 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,352, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2016 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,016, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1413 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,413, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 951 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 951, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1258 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,258, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 260 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 260, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2139 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,139, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 624 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 624, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1791 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,791, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1150 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,150, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 556 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 556, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 344 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 344, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2647 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,647, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2835 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,835, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1630 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,630, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 638 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 638, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1568 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,568, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1030 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,030, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1823 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,823, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 842 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 842, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2345 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,345, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1237 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,237, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1962 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,962, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2430 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,430, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 451 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 451, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2759 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,759, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 3326 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,326, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1481 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,481, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3023 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,023, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1773 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,773, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2263 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,263, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2521 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,521, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 266 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 266, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1176 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,176, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1390 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,390, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2931 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,931, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2025 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,025, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 268 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 268, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 384 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 384, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3716 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,716, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3462 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,462, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2967 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,967, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3388 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,388, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 398 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 398, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2403 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,403, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3645 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,645, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 830 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 830, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4284 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,284, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1818 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,818, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 669 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 669, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2845 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,845, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3153 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,153, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1313 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,313, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1628 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,628, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2599 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,599, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 532 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 532, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4649 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,649, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4174 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,174, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3211 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,211, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1221 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,221, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1739 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,739, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1447 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,447, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1069 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,069, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3976 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,976, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4493 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,493, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2035 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,035, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4019 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,019, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3844 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,844, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2612 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,612, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 235 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 235, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4301 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,301, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2434 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,434, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3420 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,420, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1287 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,287, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1927 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,927, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4474 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,474, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2060 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,060, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3986 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,986, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3235 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,235, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1818 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,818, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1191 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,191, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3751 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,751, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2662 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,662, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 953 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 953, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3890 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,890, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3063 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,063, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 757 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 757, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2247 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,247, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2833 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,833, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3393 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,393, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4292 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,292, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2328 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,328, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1053 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,053, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1351 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,351, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4172 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,172, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3650 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,650, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2716 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,716, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3153 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,153, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2167 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,167, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 624 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 624, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4080 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,080, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 552 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 552, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 203 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 203, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4856 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,856, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3973 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,973, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 521 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 521, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 782 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 782, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2152 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,152, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3776 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,776, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 5020 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,020, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1573 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,573, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1923 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,923, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3659 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,659, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2686 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,686, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 945 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 945, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 5427 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,427, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4252 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,252, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1760 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,760, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 5179 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,179, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2428 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,428, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 6257 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,257, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2926 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,926, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 3522 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,522, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1092 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,092, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 5330 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,330, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4425 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,425, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3462 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,462, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 330 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 330, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2315 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,315, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 5918 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,918, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.49) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 4111 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,111, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3224 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,224, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3174 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,174, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1263 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,263, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4543 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,543, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 631 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 631, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 6139 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,139, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1406 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,406, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2581 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,581, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1300 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,300, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 457 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 457, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1051 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,051, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 937 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 937, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1695 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,695, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3048 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,048, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1189 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,189, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2443 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,443, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 845 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 845, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3272 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,272, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2301 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,301, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 638 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 638, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2852 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,852, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 3558 | coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,558, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3425 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,425, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 304 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 304, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 250 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 250, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3173 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,173, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1767 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,767, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 745 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 745, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1515 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,515, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2677 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,677, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1407 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,407, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2956 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,956, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1868 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,868, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 668 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 668, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3219 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,219, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 970 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 970, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2171 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,171, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4046 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,046, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 727 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 727, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 312 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 312, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3996 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,996, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1182 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,182, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4317 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,317, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2424 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,424, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1345 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,345, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 554 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 554, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2798 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,798, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1458 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,458, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3850 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,850, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3508 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,508, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1654 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,654, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3126 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,126, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2361 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,361, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2811 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,811, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4543 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,543, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 463 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 463, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4906 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,906, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2570 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,570, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2282 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,282, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3038 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,038, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3678 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,678, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4449 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,449, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4210 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,210, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1086 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,086, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 852 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 852, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2430 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,430, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3048 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,048, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3767 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,767, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1178 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,178, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2849 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,849, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1699 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,699, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2726 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,726, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3626 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,626, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1369 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,369, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3464 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,464, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2361 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,361, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1852 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,852, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4022 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,022, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2667 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,667, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 731 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 731, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2276 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,276, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3302 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,302, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3175 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,175, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1437 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,437, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2155 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,155, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2547 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,547, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2932 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,932, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3827 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,827, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 642 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 642, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 269 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 269, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 355 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 355, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2999 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,999, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 257 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 257, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2011 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,011, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1303 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,303, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2330 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,330, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1186 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,186, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2194 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,194, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 864 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 864, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 736 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 736, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1652 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,652, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2455 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,455, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1468 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,468, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 212 | coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 212, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 474 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 474, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2767 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,767, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 960 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 960, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 620 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 620, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 369 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 369, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2242 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,242, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2567 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,567, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 776 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 776, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 524 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 524, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1833 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,833, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1191 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,191, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1961 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,961, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2452 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,452, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 440 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 440, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1499 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,499, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1549 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,549, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1674 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,674, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 629 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 629, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 814 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 814, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2328 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,328, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2080 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,080, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 164 | kmer_composition_change, coverage_discontinuity, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 164, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2818 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,818, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1315 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,315, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1271 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,271, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1304 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,304, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1516 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,516, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 855 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 855, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 676 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 676, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1073 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,073, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2115 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,115, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2543 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,543, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1726 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,726, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1846 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,846, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2728 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,728, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 334 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 334, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2007 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,007, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 246 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 246, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1910 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,910, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2442 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,442, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2562 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,562, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2068 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,068, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2319 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,319, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1179 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,179, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 942 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 942, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1516 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,516, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1736 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,736, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 636 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 636, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 448 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 448, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 858 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 858, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1050 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,050, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2254 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,254, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2419 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,419, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2644 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,644, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2729 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,729, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 211 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 211, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2145 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,145, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1891 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,891, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1390 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,390, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1650 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,650, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1267 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,267, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 763 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 763, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1740 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,740, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 764 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 764, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1345 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,345, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 935 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 935, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1577 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,577, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1281 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,281, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1073 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,073, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 224 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 224, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1656 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,656, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 450 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 450, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 509 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 509, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 350 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 350, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 194 | coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 194, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.16) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 743 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 743, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 361 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 361, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1078 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,078, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 941 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 941, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1624 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,624, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 534 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 534, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1179 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,179, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1493 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,493, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1377 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,377, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1805 | coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,805, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1186 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,186, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 772 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 772, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 360 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 360, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 659 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 659, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 527 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 527, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1433 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,433, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1038 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,038, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1521 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,521, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 936 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 936, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 233 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 233, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1674 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,674, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1344 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,344, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1833 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,833, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 870 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 870, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 697 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 697, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2071 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,071, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4753 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,753, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1917 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,917, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4649 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,649, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 762 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 367 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 367, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2020 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,020, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 603 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 603, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 817 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 817, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3121 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,121, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 3228 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,228, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2121 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,121, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1158 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,158, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 647 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 647, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3480 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,480, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2282 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,282, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1943 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,943, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2591 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,591, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3895 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,895, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1051 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,051, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3215 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,215, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3374 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,374, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3020 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,020, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1600 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,600, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1531 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,531, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1352 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,352, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 2150 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,150, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2910 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,910, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 519 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 519, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3163 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,163, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 317 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 317, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2660 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,660, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2789 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,789, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3686 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,686, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2029 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,029, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2431 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,431, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3576 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,576, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 762 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 5968 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,968, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1955 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,955, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4580 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,580, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2187 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,187, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2751 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,751, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1994 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,994, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 805 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 805, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2086 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,086, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1848 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,848, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3236 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,236, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3524 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,524, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 3925 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,925, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 656 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 656, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2459 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,459, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2985 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,985, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3759 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,759, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 3658 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,658, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1155 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,155, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1747 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,747, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1955 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,955, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2857 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,857, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 766 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 766, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3120 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,120, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1462 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,462, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 525 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 525, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2344 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,344, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4042 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,042, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2123 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,123, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 973 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 973, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1630 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,630, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2067 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,067, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3093 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,093, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 891 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 891, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1341 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,341, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1270 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,270, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 259 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 259, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 389 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 389, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 439 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 439, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1570 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,570, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3243 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,243, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1990 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,990, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1206 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,206, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3950 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,950, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 241 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 241, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1707 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,707, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2320 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,320, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 353 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 353, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1860 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,860, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2719 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,719, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1054 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,054, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 681 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 681, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 551 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 551, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2469 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,469, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2038 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,038, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2633 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,633, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1157 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,157, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1566 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,566, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2238 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,238, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 189 | coverage_discontinuity, kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 189, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 875 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 875, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2178 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,178, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 653 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 653, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1677 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,677, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1479 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,479, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2560 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,560, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1533 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,533, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2020 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,020, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1230 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,230, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 948 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 948, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1871 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,871, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1982 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,982, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2240 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,240, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1352 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,352, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1103 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,103, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1746 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,746, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 475 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 475, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 780 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 780, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 364 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 364, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2155 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,155, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 2845 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,845, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 877 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 877, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1021 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,021, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1710 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,710, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1078 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,078, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2733 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,733, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 215 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 215, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1212 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,212, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2370 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,370, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2803 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,803, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 591 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 591, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 162 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 162, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 821 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 821, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 665 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 665, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1428 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,428, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1749 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,749, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2470 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,470, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1888 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,888, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2461 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,461, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3201 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,201, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3394 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,394, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1931 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,931, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4302 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,302, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2739 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,739, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3475 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,475, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2593 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,593, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4562 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,562, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 422 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 422, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3934 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,934, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4054 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,054, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1389 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,389, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1732 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,732, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1016 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,016, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3176 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,176, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4922 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,922, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2363 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,363, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2889 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,889, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 905 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 905, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1554 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,554, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2143 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,143, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1236 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,236, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 598 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 598, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 728 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 728, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3802 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,802, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3058 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,058, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 244 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 244, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3441 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,441, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 958 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 958, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 439 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 439, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1018 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,018, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 165 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 165, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1769 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,769, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 843 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 843, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 950 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 950, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4225 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,225, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 645 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 645, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2388 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,388, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 775 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 775, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3514 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,514, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3959 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,959, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 5338 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,338, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 4709 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,709, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4517 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,517, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3367 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,367, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2137 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,137, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.45) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1839 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,839, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 5685 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,685, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1590 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,590, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1720 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,720, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 4920 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,920, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.46) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1342 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,342, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3265 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,265, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1147 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,147, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1996 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,996, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1492 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,492, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2902 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,902, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 5468 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,468, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2580 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,580, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 3040 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,040, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3752 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,752, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2853 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,853, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 501 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 501, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 5124 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,124, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3583 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,583, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 2522 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,522, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1645 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,645, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2929 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,929, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 431 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 431, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2127 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,127, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.08) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 5128 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,128, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2897 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,897, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1482 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,482, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 910 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 910, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2741 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,741, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2509 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,509, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 326 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 326, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1189 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,189, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2066 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,066, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4749 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,749, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 4305 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,305, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 311 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 311, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4852 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,852, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 669 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 669, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4486 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,486, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1561 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,561, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3944 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,944, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4367 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,367, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2659 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,659, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3247 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,247, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3528 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,528, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1410 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,410, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2862 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,862, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3061 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,061, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3375 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,375, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4243 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,243, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 545 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 545, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 887 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 887, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 937 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 937, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2543 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,543, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 3824 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,824, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1808 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,808, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 4977 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,977, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4566 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,566, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2137 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,137, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1631 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,631, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2016 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,016, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4063 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,063, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1126 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,126, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 4711 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,711, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1792 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,792, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1276 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,276, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2356 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,356, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2652 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,652, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1127 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,127, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2762 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 722 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 722, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3596 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,596, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2727 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,727, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2652 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,652, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1207 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,207, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2506 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,506, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2615 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,615, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 573 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 573, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2241 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,241, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 2834 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,834, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 837 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 837, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1403 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,403, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 3762 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,762, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 370 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 370, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2077 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,077, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1818 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,818, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2680 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,680, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.45) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 2200 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,200, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1243 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,243, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4024 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,024, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1912 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,912, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 957 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 957, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1218 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,218, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2048 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,048, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3731 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,731, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.60.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2289 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,289, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 452 | kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 452, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.61.
|
Click on the links below to view detailed analysis for each chimeric contig:
Chimeric contigs are detected using multiple complementary approaches:
Confidence scores range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for the classification. Scores above 0.8 are considered high confidence, 0.5-0.8 medium confidence, and below 0.5 low confidence.